Federal Courts Split Over Subpoenas and ACA Rule on Gender-Affirming Care

In a notable divergence of judicial opinions, a federal appeals court upheld the Justice Department’s demand for patient records from the telehealth firm QueerDoc, with two of three judges deeming the request permissible. This decision contrasts with earlier rulings that labeled similar subpoenas as excessive. The Justice Department, having appealed the initial denial, is now focusing its enforcement efforts on a Texas district court known for its conservative stance.

Separately, a district court in New York invalidated a Trump administration rule that attempted to remove gender-affirming care from the list of essential health benefits required under the Affordable Care Act, finding the rule procedurally improper. While only a few states explicitly list transgender health services as essential, many cover them under broader categories. A criminal subpoena for records from NYU has also been temporarily halted by a federal judge. Legal scholars note that the QueerDoc case may be escalated to an en banc review, potentially reshaping the balance between law-enforcement data requests and patient privacy.